curator-mcp

Search Sensory Vault

search_sensory_vault

Search sensory vault items by keyword, category, rating, or flavor tag to find whiskey, wine, coffee, tea, and more. Filter by ownership status or minimum rating.

Instructions

Search sensory vault items by keyword, category, rating, or flavor tag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No	Flavor or aroma accord tag (e.g. 'peat', 'bergamot', 'jasmine').
`limit`	No	Max results to return. Defaults to 5.
`query`	No	Keyword matching name, brand, origin, or notes.
`status`	No	Ownership filter ('owned', 'wishlist', 'experienced').
`category`	No	Domain filter ('whiskey', 'wine', 'coffee', 'tea', 'gin', 'chocolate', 'perfume', 'watch').
`min_rating`	No	Minimum rating threshold (1.0 to 10.0).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a read, but the description says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, empty-result handling, or whether filters are ANDed together — all meaningful for a 6-parameter query tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is perhaps too terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema covers all parameters. Still, for a six-parameter cross-category search with no annotations and an overlapping sibling (search_vault), the description leaves routing, filter combination, and result behavior unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with examples. The description's facet list (keyword, category, rating, flavor tag) partially mirrors the schema but omits the status and limit filters, adding no syntax or semantics beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('sensory vault items') and enumerates the supported filter facets. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling search_vault (or search_books/search_media/search_restaurants), leaving the agent to guess which vault to query.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The facet list hints at supported filters but gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when search_vault is the better pick, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer routing on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.